Maureen Down and AP both published stories making the same point today about the results from PA and the election in general. The question is simple, why if "everyone knows" Hillary has been out-fundraised, outspent, out-charismad, out-etc... can Obama not close the deal and put her away with just one win in a major state that would statistically make it impossible for her to catch up in any form or fashion?

We've had this same discussion after Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. It may be the only true thing to have come out of her mouth the entire campaign, but it is indeed true that once you get out of smaller states, Obama loses.

Shes been running ads about it, suggesting he doesnt have what it takes to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, hes outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husbands going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Wow....

Quote:

The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they cant because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door. Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, youve got to score points.

He knew he tanked in the Philadelphia debate, but he was so irritated by the moderators and by having to stand next to Hillary again that he couldnt summon a single merry dart.

Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and hes used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because shes scary?

He's flush with cash. He oversees a high-tech political movement. His "change" message fits these anxious times. And, until recently, he had momentum. So why didn't he win Tuesday?

And why can't he close the deal?

Triple-wow.

So I ask you because not only do many of you support the man, but voted for him, why, among not the general election but within his own party can Obama not close the deal and win just one of the big races that put this thing out of reach? Does his charisma, while raising boat-loads of money, have limits that Hillary and larger states demonstrate? It is clear that he is great with a speech, but catch him in an unprepared moment or in a debate, and things go marginal at best.

My view, as I've said all along is that Obama, in portraying himself as once in a generation/lifetime change agent and not much else, has only to be proven normal and human to be rendered ineffective. Clinton may have tossed the kitchen sink at him but it took the bloom off the rose and now it is clear, there isn't anything he has to counter with. I mean he can toss the kitchen sink back at Clinton but it reinforces her own campaign point in that she has already had the kitchen sink and a heck of a lot more tossed at her and is still here punching. Everyone already has their vibe for Clinton. It is an "I loathe her but she checks my boxes and promises competence" vibe and tossing more dirt on it really won't change the level of loathing much worse.

Maureen Down and AP both published stories making the same point today about the results from PA and the election in general. The question is simple, why if "everyone knows" Hillary has been out-fundraised, outspent, out-charismad, out-etc... can Obama not close the deal and put her away with just one win in a major state that would statistically make it impossible for her to catch up in any form or fashion?

We've had this same discussion after Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. It may be the only true thing to have come out of her mouth the entire campaign, but it is indeed true that once you get out of smaller states, Obama loses.

So I ask you because not only do many of you support the man, but voted for him, why, among not the general election but within his own party can Obama not close the deal and win just one of the big races that put this thing out of reach? Does his charisma, while raising boat-loads of money, have limits that Hillary and larger states demonstrate? It is clear that he is great with a speech, but catch him in an unprepared moment or in a debate, and things go marginal at best.

My view, as I've said all along is that Obama, in portraying himself as once in a generation/lifetime change agent and not much else, has only to be proven normal and human to be rendered ineffective. Clinton may have tossed the kitchen sink at him but it took the bloom off the rose and now it is clear, there isn't anything he has to counter with. I mean he can toss the kitchen sink back at Clinton but it reinforces her own campaign point in that she has already had the kitchen sink and a heck of a lot more tossed at her and is still here punching. Everyone already has their vibe for Clinton. It is an "I loathe her but she checks my boxes and promises competence" vibe and tossing more dirt on it really won't change the level of loathing much worse.

What are your thoughts?

What "should" be an easy win for the Democrats in November, is starting to look like a major train wreck.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Whomever "wins" the Democrat's nomination will lose key demographics from the "loser's" side of the fence.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

The demographics suggest that the country is NOT very liberal (anyone remember Air America and their financial situation), that the country is filled with a growing aging senior segment who seem more prone to go with Hillary or McCain. There are many in rural areas of the country in any state red, blue or purple and the writing is on the wall. They are not liberals and can't relate to the most liberal of candidates in this case Obama fitting this bill.

So America is facing a situation where we have a populace which seems to favor:

Bush Jr. McCain

and / or

Bush light Hillary

I would agree that the democratic party is headed for a train wreck.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

The demographics suggest that the country is NOT very liberal (anyone remember Air America and their financial situation), that the country is filled with a growing aging senior segment who seem more prone to go with Hillary or McCain. There are many in rural areas of the country in any state red, blue or purple and the writing is on the wall. They are not liberals and can't relate to the most liberal of candidates in this case Obama fitting this bill.

So America is facing a situation where we have a populace which seems to favor:

Bush Jr. McCain

and / or

Bush light Hillary

I would agree that the democratic party is headed for a train wreck.

Fellows

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

I, like many others, felt Obama was a tougher candidate than Hillary in the general election. I no longer feel that way. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't believe he has a chance. McCain will win solidly, if not by an outright landslide.

Why? Obama can't win the swing states. He won't win NJ and NY. He won't win FL and MI. He won't win Republican strongholds. Where will he win? He'll take the left coast and the liberal Northeast, like Vermont, Mass, etc. McCain will trounce him everywhere else.

No, I don't think Hillary will beat McCain either...but she has a better shot with working class voters. Her downfall will be conservatives who will come out to prevent her from becoming President, even if they don't like McCain.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The little catch phrase "put her away" is nonsensical. This is not a boxing match. He can't force her to do anything. The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

Obama has overcome tremendous disadvantages and built, from nothing, a political machine that outclasses Clinton's in every way. It's bigger, it's smarter, it's wealthier, and it is more enthusiastic. However, 1 year of amazing work by Obama isn't going to entirely erase 16 years of hard work by the Clintons.

This is David versus Goliath, and people are complaining didn't win impressively enough, completely ignoring the fact that David actually won.

- Hillary has the highest name recognition (Q-rating) of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in history.
- She has had a powerful political machine on her side (a political machine that backed a very popular, 2-term president) since 2000 with the sole intention of making her president.
- She is the wife of one of the most popular presidents of modern times; with that president out on the stump campaigning for her very vigorously.

The fact that Obama has beaten her in the vast majority of states (all states matter, not just the ones Hillary tells you) is a testament to the power he has as a candidate.

- He had no major connections, he forged those himself.
- He had no fundraising machine, he built it himself.
- He had no built-in alliances, he created those himself.
- He had no loyal constituencies, he convinced those himself.

So now that he is outspending her, it is a testament to the power of his attractiveness to average voters. He has 1.5 million donors and growing donating $50, not 50 donors donating $1.5 million.

Pennsylvania is a perfect example of this.

-The Democratic political apparatus of the state was firmly on Hillary's side. The Democratic governor has been building her and tearing him down for months. The mechanism under the governor has been staunchly arguing in her favor for weeks.

- But all the major newspapers in Pennsylvania endorsed Obama.

What does that tell you? What does that say about Obama's appeal and Clinton's appeal?

SDW2001:

Quote:

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

Please keep doing this. Do everything you can to get this message out and create that narrative. Build that coronation narrative just like Clinton did and watch Obama eat it alive.

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

YES. With the help of Diebold voting machines, we will see, come November, that a 71 year old rapture ready, christian conservative who owns eight houses and wants to stay in Iraq (and Iran) for 100 years is just the "Change™" America is looking for.

I'd rather be embarrassed and have civil rights than have everyone love me and be in a fascist state.

Mabye it's because Obama hasn't been doing well lately. Do we see the results of "Bittergate" in the PA results? Almost 10 points (rounding up) difference Obama doesn't even want to debate anymore. Poor baby.

Mabye it's because Obama hasn't been doing well lately. Do we see the results of "Bittergate" in the PA results? Almost 10 points (rounding up) difference Obama doesn't even want to debate anymore. Poor baby.

The press was too easy on him too early.

What do you mean hasn't been doing well?

There's no proof that *any* of the mini-controversies have had *any* affect on Obama's numbers. Clinton's big win was expected for months.

The problem is that the press keeps playing this as if Clinton still has a dog in this fight.

Mydo... check out the polls dating back forever, Obama was NEVER in the lead in PA, he went from a 20 point disadvantage four weeks ago to get within 10%...

This is a horse race not a sprint. His lead is nearly insurmountable.... And in two weeks will be insurmountable, I suspect. THEN Clinton has to get to work cleaning up her mess if she wants the best candidate to become president.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Another fallacy... McCain has put Ron Paul away and every other candidate. He has secured the nomination by winning the necessary delegates. When the Republican version of this happened with Huckabee refusing to bow out, McCain put him away and secured the nomination.

Quote:

The little catch phrase "put her away" is nonsensical. This is not a boxing match. He can't force her to do anything. The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

It is not nonsensical at all. It is entirely possible to secure the nomination and if Obama was able to win the large states as he had done the smaller states, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also from what I have read, Clinton, if you include Florida and Michigan vote totals now has the popular vote advantage again.

Quote:

The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

A popular vote claim is a legitimate claim to the nomination. She has reclaimed this and that problem is absolutely Obama's.

Quote:

Obama has overcome tremendous disadvantages and built, from nothing, a political machine that outclasses Clinton's in every way. It's bigger, it's smarter, it's wealthier, and it is more enthusiastic. However, 1 year of amazing work by Obama isn't going to entirely erase 16 years of hard work by the Clintons.

Well those of us that don't buy the nonsensical Clinton experience argument will note that Obama actually has more experience. He has held office since 1995 and while he may not have held a national profile that entire time was certainly able to work hard and build a fundraising apparatus. Additionally in being given a speaking spot at the Democratic convention, it certainly helped raise his profile, much like it did for (Bill) Clinton in 1988.

Quote:

This is David versus Goliath, and people are complaining didn't win impressively enough, completely ignoring the fact that David actually won.

You keep forgetting that David hasn't won yet.

Quote:

- Hillary has the highest name recognition (Q-rating) of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in history.
- She has had a powerful political machine on her side (a political machine that backed a very popular, 2-term president) since 2000 with the sole intention of making her president.
- She is the wife of one of the most popular presidents of modern times; with that president out on the stump campaigning for her very vigorously.

-She has always had and still has huge negatives.
-She was able to be elected by carpetbagging to a political liberal state.
Her husband never topped 50% of the vote and with her inability to easily beat Obama, Gore's inability to capture the electoral college or run on the Clinton record, the Clinton legacy is seriously at stake.
-Which lead to the last point, popularity doesn't necessarily translate to electability. Obama is hugely popular yet cannot secure the nomination. Bill Clinton was hugely popular but could not gain 50%. Bill Clinton has been declared a liability instead of an asset on the stump.

Quote:

The fact that Obama has beaten her in the vast majority of states (all states matter, not just the ones Hillary tells you) is a testament to the power he has as a candidate.

- He had no major connections, he forged those himself.
- He had no fundraising machine, he built it himself.
- He had no built-in alliances, he created those himself.
- He had no loyal constituencies, he convinced those himself.

Many of us would argue that he has many major connections. He simply desires not to bring them up because there is questionable ethics involved with those people. (Tony Rezko anyone?!)

The rest is just absolutes. You don't get elected to office and hold it for 12 years with a bunch of no's.

Quote:

So now that he is outspending her, it is a testament to the power of his attractiveness to average voters. He has 1.5 million donors and growing donating $50, not 50 donors donating $1.5 million.

Yet the money and donors don't seem to secure necessary wins so mentioning them while A point is certainly not THE point. He outspent Clinton two to one in Pennsylvania and still lost.

He has out-raised Clinton by $40 million yet cannot secure the nomination. He is tied in polls with McCain who he has buried in terms of money. Yet we can all site dozens of elections where fundraising hasn't translated to a win.

It is interesting because anyone else would cite this as a clear sign of weakness, but you cite it as a strength. When Romney couldn't close the deal despite having outspent other opponents, it was proof of him being a weak candidate. It is proof for Obama as well.

Quote:

-The Democratic political apparatus of the state was firmly on Hillary's side. The Democratic governor has been building her and tearing him down for months. The mechanism under the governor has been staunchly arguing in her favor for weeks.

- But all the major newspapers in Pennsylvania endorsed Obama.

What does that tell you? What does that say about Obama's appeal and Clinton's appeal?

It says that the appeal is limited and divided which is exactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Nick, this insanely retarded meme you've been pushing for months has to stop.

Clinton and Obama are both extremely popular politicians in Democratic circles. There's nothing more to be said there.

Obama and McCain will also be very close. Whether his candidacy stands for change or not, no one can ignore U.S. electoral political realities.

It MUST STOP! ShawnJ has declared so and we don't want to make him bitter!

It isn't just me raising it. I sourced two articles today and could have easily added three more. I can find the articles because it is a relevant point being raise in a number of circles due to the reality of how the votes have shaped up. There are clear demographic lines and it is pretty clear that Obama doesn't seem to scale up well beyond a certain size state seeing as he has won NONE of them.

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

You do bring skip at the real point which is you cannot ignore reality. In reality money alone doesn't win elections, nor does charisma. At some point the empty suit has to be filled with something besides cash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

What do you mean hasn't been doing well?

There's no proof that *any* of the mini-controversies have had *any* affect on Obama's numbers. Clinton's big win was expected for months.

The problem is that the press keeps playing this as if Clinton still has a dog in this fight.

Yeah and "months ago" Clinton was expected to have locked away the entire nomination and consigned Obama to the dustbin by now. Only she didn't and this and several wins have been seen as reversals of fortune or proof Obama cannot grow beyond a certain base.

People aren't making it up. The exit polls have clear demographic delineations and people who aren't wearing blinders are discussing them.

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

Is a "meme' a person all of a sudden?

"insanely retarded meme," not person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yeah and "months ago" Clinton was expected to have locked away the entire nomination and consigned Obama to the dustbin by now.

Oh please.

I'm referring to the contests following Super Tuesday in early February. Being that it's almost May, that qualifies as, shocker upon shocker, "months ago." That's at least how long a large PA win for Clinton was predicted, which defeats mydo's ill-informed conclusion that he lost big as a result of more "critical" media coverage and/or Clinton's attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Only she didn't and this and several wins have been seen as reversals of fortune or proof Obama cannot grow beyond a certain base.

People aren't making it up. The exit polls have clear demographic delineations and people who aren't wearing blinders are discussing them.

Just because Obama and Clinton have different demographics, it doesn't mean that there won't be significant overlap in the general election. For instance, Obama lost CA but there's no question he would win it in the Fall. And the same is true for other states.

The answer is that unlike the proportional representation intrinsic to the Democratic Primaries, Republicans have a winner takes all fight -- it makes it easier to put people away. And Clinton surely would have put Obama away a long time ago if this was the case, but therein lies the problem with this approach (after superdupertuesday). You end up getting a candidate chosen by the earliest nomination contests as opposed to the candidate who represents 'merica.

In addition, it is inherently, in the long run, better for the party to have several strong candidates running...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Remember, in Trumpt's eyes, attacking his ideas is incontrovertible proof that you think he's stupid and that you've personally attacked him.

Okay, okay. I'll be delicate.

"Trumptman, I think your central premise is lacking in substance, and this is surprising because you're a man of superior intellect, taste, and ability. Hell, if I rolled up next to you in my ride, I'd ask you for some grey poupon."

A meme (pronounced /miːm or mɛm/) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity.

However you are welcome to explain why you are assigning personal attributes to a piece of information. How can information have an IQ and thus be retarded? It can't and we all understand where and to whom those terms were supposed to transfer. You are calling my thoughts and ideas "insanely retarded" and claiming it isn't a personal attack which is just ridiculous.

Quote:

Oh please.

I'm referring to the contests following Super Tuesday in early February. Being that it's almost May, that qualifies as, shocker upon shocker, "months ago." That's at least how long a large PA win for Clinton was predicted, which defeats mydo's ill-informed conclusion that he lost big as a result of more "critical" media coverage and/or Clinton's attacks.

We all understand that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Clinton was supposed to win PA when she was "inevitable." Now she has lost a lot of states since then and is clearly not "inevitable" but still won PA. Two different contexts but you want us to apply the old information to the new context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Actually, the correct question is why DID McCain put away Romney?

The answer is that unlike the proportional representation intrinsic to the Democratic Primaries, Republicans have a winner takes all fight -- it makes it easier to put people away. And Clinton surely would have put Obama away a long time ago if this was the case, but therein lies the problem with this approach (after superdupertuesday). You end up getting a candidate chosen by the earliest nomination contests as opposed to the candidate who represents 'merica.

In addition, it is inherently, in the long run, better for the party to have several strong candidates running...

Actually the Democratic primary doesn't feature proportional representation either. It, like much of their thinking actually has a progressive structure to it that penalizes the winner unless they win by large margins. In most states you have to effectively win 60-40 to gain additional delegates.

As for your contention about how it works, we can see by the long legacy of Democratic presidencies since they adopted this procedures that it clearly MUST work well.

A meme (pronounced /miːm or mɛm/) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity.

However you are welcome to explain why you are assigning personal attributes to a piece of information. How can information have an IQ and thus be retarded? It can't and we all understand where and to whom those terms were supposed to transfer. You are calling my thoughts and ideas "insanely retarded" and claiming it isn't a personal attack which is just ridiculous.

This post is brilliant satire!

Right? (It actually is)

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Clinton was supposed to win PA when she was "inevitable." Now she has lost a lot of states since then and is clearly not "inevitable" but still won PA. Two different contexts but you want us to apply the old information to the new context.

This was supposed to Clinton's year, remember? I mean we spent years on this board speculating about when/if/inevitability of Clinton running for president. Until about four or five months ago Clinton was ALWAYS the presumptive front-runner.

Shouldn't the title of this thread be...Why Can't Clinton Close The Deal? Why did Clinton allow an underdog to rise up and pass her? Why did Clinton implode and lose her support?

McCain is the the actual nominee and yet he still lost 25% of the primary vote last night. So what. Big F'n deal.

The bottom line is simple. Clinton feels it is her god given right to be the nominee. Not only did she presume this was her nomination from the beginning, but she's acting like an incredulous candidate who can't believe she's be usurped.

But intellectually vapid threads based on dishonest premises are lame.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

Clinton cannot win. I mean that in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

Theoretically she could still win. Theoretically I could end up in a threesome tonight with Salma Hayek and Natalie Portman. The odds of a groverat-Hayek-Portman ménage-a-trois are not far off the odds of a Clinton being at the top of the Democratic ticket.

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore.
She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates.

Look at the trend with superdelegates:

So two extremely unlikely things have to happen (as if hoping for 1 wasn't enough).
1 - Clinton has to win pledged delegates in numbers that she has shown a complete inability to thus far.
2 - Clinton has to dominate the remaining superdelegates, something she hasn't done since February.

Here on earth we don't assume (or even lightly expect) occurrences based on extraordinarily unlikely propositions.

No one is "put away" until they concede or the nomination becomes official.

A major scandal could break or McCain could die, making Paul a potential candidate for the nomination. I think McCain keeling over is just as likely as Hillary pulling the golden ticket out of her ass.

You're caught up in hysteria. The numbers and trends are what they are. Obama is the 2008 Democratic candidate for president.

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair.

Quote:

CNN and other news organizations also noting this are not just pushing an "insanely retarded meme."

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

Calling a meme "insanely retarded" is not calling the person using the meme "insanely retarded".

I might also add that Pennsylvania was ALWAYS Hillary country. it's where she hails from. About six weeks ago she enjoyed a 20 POINT LEAD in that state. In short six weeks Obama cut that number in half. If given a couple more weeks he would've reduced her lead by five more.

So this notion that Obama lost Pennsylvania because he sucks is so ridiculous one can only assume your playing political games.

The MSM had been predicting a 8-10 point win for Hillary for WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS. And now that Hillary won by exactly that margin the spin has become "Obama can't close the deal?" Are you fucking kidding me?

One thing is for sure. Don't stand next to goal post around here, it might be dangerous to your person.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore. She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates.

This has been the case for a couple months now. She cannot win and hasn't been in a position to win for a VERY LONG TIME.

Yet, it seems more important to spin this into an Obama problem. The media had no problem mocking Huckelberry when it was obvious he couldn't win. Yet the same media yapping dogs pretend that Hillary and Obama are in an honest horse race. It's utterly ridiculous.

You couldn't almost hear Trumptman giggling as he wrote this thread.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

This has been the case for a couple months now. She cannot win and hasn't been in a position to win for a VERY LONG TIME.

Yet, it seems more important to spin this into an Obama problem. The media had no problem mocking Huckelberry when it was obvious he couldn't win. Yet the same media yapping dogs pretend that Hillary and Obama are in an honest horse race. It's utterly ridiculous.

You couldn't almost hear Trumptman giggling as he wrote this thread.

If Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime change agent, why aren't McCain and Clinton just giving up now?

Clinton cannot win. I mean that in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

No one can lock it up before the convention. They can only argue about what what set of variables should be used to claim a partial and incomplete victory should be a complete one. This is true for both candidates and is true in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

Quote:

Theoretically she could still win. Theoretically I could end up in a threesome tonight with Salma Hayek and Natalie Portman. The odds of a groverat-Hayek-Portman ménage-a-trois are not far off the odds of a Clinton being at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Well the difference though is the odds for both Clinton and Obama are bad. Clinton might need to win an highly improbably 80% of all remaining delegates while Obama only needs to win 65% of all remaining delegates but it doesn't make either of the probably enough to call one realistic. To use your analogy it is like complaining that you ending with Natalie Portman tonight is "real world" while you, Natalie, and Salma are simply "make-believe."

Neither one of them will have the number of delegates and someone is going to have to find a way to extract a pound of flesh from the other in order to have the convention give them the necessary number. The fact that you are more inclined to buy the Obama reasoning doesn't produce a number.

Quote:

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore.
She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates.

.

No one will pull away and that is what you refuse to deal with in the "real world" sense. No one gets to the magic number. No one.

Since we love analogies, it is like arguing that you and I both lost to the same team that won the Superbowl but in the "real world" you won the Superbowl because you played them a week later...or whatever other strange vagaries we care to put forth because that is exactly what will be happening at the convention.

Popular vote versus delegates
Big states versus small states
Who can raise more money
Etc..etc....

The trends with super delegates doesn't at all matter. They can all choose to switch at anytime. Until they have voted at the convention and had someone get the number needed to clinch it literally swing in an instance. All they have agreed to do is pledge their vote to one or the other before the convention but if the first ballot fails, after that, it is open season.

I'm sure at the end of the convention there will be a measure to make the votes unanimous anyway. The real issue is going to be in how much damage is caused in getting that pound of flesh from one candidate or the other. There is no clean way to do it.

Quote:

So two extremely unlikely things have to happen (as if hoping for 1 wasn't enough).
1 - Clinton has to win pledged delegates in numbers that she has shown a complete inability to thus far.
2 - Clinton has to dominate the remaining superdelegates, something she hasn't done since February.

Here on earth we don't assume (or even lightly expect) occurrences based on extraordinarily unlikely propositions.

Again no one has produced the numbers that are necessary. Clinton has produced wins of 80%+ and Obama hasn't produced wins of 65-70%. No one gets there unless it is through extraordinary means that somehow occur before the convention. Stop focusing on Clinton being X% more extraordinary and show how Obama gets there in some fashion that ISN'T extraordinary.

Again stop arguing that Portman can happen because it isn't Portman and Hayak. Neither one is happening.

Quote:

No one is "put away" until they concede or the nomination becomes official.

In the strictest sense this is true but if you have the votes, awaiting certification of them is just part of the process. It isn't at all like not having the votes which is what you are trying to claim.

Quote:

A major scandal could break or McCain could die, making Paul a potential candidate for the nomination. I think McCain keeling over is just as likely as Hillary pulling the golden ticket out of her ass.

You're caught up in hysteria. The numbers and trends are what they are. Obama is the 2008 Democratic candidate for president.

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair.

Yes and Obama could get caught sleeping with Clinton and both of them could die tomorrow as well when Bill shoots them in a jealous rage.

Hoping for the impossible for the Republicans won't make the impossible more likely for the Democrats. NO ONE gets to the number to clinch before the convention. No one gets to it without taking someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate. Claiming that one has 49.8% percent while the other only has 49.6% doesn't get you to 50%. It just doesn't.

Quote:

Calling a meme "insanely retarded" is not calling the person using the meme "insanely retarded".

Do you really not see the difference?

Telling someone to take an action real or imagined is the not same thing as calling the person anything at all.

Do you really not see the difference?

BTW Grove your post is infantile and stupid. It isn't a personal attack because I'm only describing the post. Sure I am assigning the post personal attributes but apparently we really cannot see the difference. At least if that is the game you want to play, I can play it as well.

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

I, like many others, felt Obama was a tougher candidate than Hillary in the general election. I no longer feel that way. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't believe he has a chance. McCain will win solidly, if not by an outright landslide.

Why? Obama can't win the swing states. He won't win NJ and NY. He won't win FL and MI. He won't win Republican strongholds. Where will he win? He'll take the left coast and the liberal Northeast, like Vermont, Mass, etc. McCain will trounce him everywhere else.

No, I don't think Hillary will beat McCain either...but she has a better shot with working class voters. Her downfall will be conservatives who will come out to prevent her from becoming President, even if they don't like McCain.

I totally disagree.

None of this will matter by the time we reach Nov.

Whoever the democratic nomination is the rest of the party will stand with that person.

McCain won't win because he favors many of the same policies as Bush ( Iraq even more so " make it a hundred if we have to " ). Pure and simple.

The people will vote against him just to get out from under this situation. Anything else is just conservative wishful thinking and I really don't buy it.

The country is very tired now with the economy the way it is ( does McCain have a viable solution for this? ) and the war as Bush and CO. have almost run us into the ground.

The gas prices will stay high as long as we stay in Iraq. OPEC ( in case you need a reminder of how they operate :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC ) sets the prices and as they said recently they won't up production. They sited American mismanagement but the real reason is that they really don't want us poking around over there. None of the people in control over here are motivated to change anything about it as they are seeing huge profits and won't feel the pinch like the average person will ( this includes our Texas Big Oil president ). Yes I know you'll say something about Tinfoil hat or some such nonsense but there's a very simple truth to this. We're getting shafted both ways big time!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'll go even further than THAT and say that McCain is going to win all 50 states!

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

YES. With the help of Diebold voting machines, we will see,

That's hysterical. It really is. Clearly if McCain wins it will be fraud. And if Obama or Clinton win it will be the Will of The People.

Quote:

come November, that a 71 year old rapture ready, christian conservative

Quote:

who owns eight houses

OMG! He has money! I don't hear anything about the 109 million Clinton has. Hmmm? No, instead I get to listen to Michele "Barack is Special" Obama bitch about their student loans and how tough they had it at Harvard. Yeah. Change!

Quote:

Quote:

and wants to stay in Iraq (and Iran) for 100 years is just the "Change" America is looking for.

Excellent. Let's take something McCain said and then later explained...and just twist the shit out of it. That's fair.

Quote:

I'd rather be embarrassed and have civil rights than have everyone love me and be in a fascist state.

There's no proof that *any* of the mini-controversies have had *any* affect on Obama's numbers. Clinton's big win was expected for months.

The problem is that the press keeps playing this as if Clinton still has a dog in this fight.

False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

With the help of Diebold, McCain will still win by no more than 2%. I'll send you, SDW2001BC a $25 iTunes gift certificate if I'm wrong. What will you offer if you are?

I was going to say "All 50 states!" but BRussell beat me to it.

Anyone who is predicting "landslide" is truly r3tRd@.

As for the popular vote, I don't know that I'll take that bet. But I will bet that McCain gets at least 325 electoral votes, more likely 350. I did a quick estimate here. It's not looking good for Obama. He'll win CA, OR, WA, MASS, RI, CT, IL, VT, DC..maybe MN, IA, ME and MD. Add that up and then realize that McCain will win all the biggies...PA, MI, FL, NY, NJ, the entire south and southwest, the lions's share of the midwest, etc. Do the math. Obama's screwed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Mydo... check out the polls dating back forever, Obama was NEVER in the lead in PA, he went from a 20 point disadvantage four weeks ago to get within 10%...

Well again..he was even in some polls before his fart-smelling San Francisco comments (South Park reference anyone?).

Quote:

This is a horse race not a sprint. His lead is nearly insurmountable.... And in two weeks will be insurmountable, I suspect. THEN Clinton has to get to work cleaning up her mess if she wants the best candidate to become president.

I agree with that, unless he has a meltdown. Or, if she can somehow get close in terms of delegates (<50) and popular vote (<50,000), she might have a case. Actually, I think her best bet is to get MI and FL seated. She could even win the pledged delegates that way...I think. Need to check the math.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I might also add that Pennsylvania was ALWAYS Hillary country. it's where she hails from. About six weeks ago she enjoyed a 20 POINT LEAD in that state. In short six weeks Obama cut that number in half. If given a couple more weeks he would've reduced her lead by five more.

So this notion that Obama lost Pennsylvania because he sucks is so ridiculous one can only assume your playing political games.

The MSM had been predicting a 8-10 point win for Hillary for WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS. And now that Hillary won by exactly that margin the spin has become "Obama can't close the deal?" Are you fucking kidding me?

One thing is for sure. Don't stand next to goal post around here, it might be dangerous to your person.

First of all I don't giggle when I post. I giggle when you reply.

Second, you really don't appear to realize you are reinforcing Clinton's argument for her. You are making the case that she should be PRESIDENT over Obama.

That sound you hear is giggling.

See Obama is a change agent, only he isn't. No amount of money will make him competitive or change the minds of people in large states, in states that aren't X percent black, that have X percent of people at certain economic levels.

You have just confirmed Hillary's premise. Obama can run well but he cannot close the deal. He cannot win big states. He cannot cross over and win certain independent voters. He can't win no matter what level of money raised or spent. This can be worked on for months and he cannot alter the outcome.

First we all know that numbers are fluid up until pretty close to the election. Then it takes a lot to budge them. Clinton wasn't really ahead by 20 a couple months ago because people just spit out the name they knew. Now when informed because of the election, it is equally wrong to claim that pending a major gaffe or change of events, the numbers would have radically altered from the +10.

People don't pay attention, but when they do become informed, it is harder to change their mind.

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all.

That's hysterical. It really is. Clearly if McCain wins it will be fraud. And if Obama or Clinton win it will be the Will of The People.

OMG! He has money! I don't hear anything about the 109 million Clinton has. Hmmm? No, instead I get to listen to Michele "Barack is Special" Obama bitch about their student loans and how tough they had it at Harvard. Yeah. Change!

False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it.

As for the popular vote, I don't know that I'll take that bet. But I will bet that McCain gets at least 325 electoral votes, more likely 350. I did a quick estimate here. It's not looking good for Obama. He'll win CA, OR, WA, MASS, RI, CT, IL, VT, DC..maybe MN, IA, ME and MD. Add that up and then realize that McCain will win all the biggies...PA, MI, FL, NY, NJ, the entire south and southwest, the lions's share of the midwest, etc. Do the math. Obama's screwed.

Well again..he was even in some polls before his fart-smelling San Francisco comments (South Park reference anyone?).

I agree with that, unless he has a meltdown. Or, if she can somehow get close in terms of delegates (<50) and popular vote (<50,000), she might have a case. Actually, I think her best bet is to get MI and FL seated. She could even win the pledged delegates that way...I think. Need to check the math.[/QUOTE]

You're in for a big disapointment. But hold on to that last gasp of hope. Same for Trumpy.

You're baseing this all on the idea that Hillary can't win against McCain. I think you're wrong. I think people just won't want another aging republican as president at this time. One who'll do the exact same thing as Bush only in a little smarter way.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

"Groverat is a moronic, single-celled cretin who initially cheerleaded the Iraq War."

Personal attack, clearly.

"Groverat's moronic arguments in support of Iraq War Dos make him stupid."

Getting better, but you see, still personal attack!

"Groverat's moronic arguments in support of the Iraq War were quickly trumped by what ensued after the invasion."

Jackpot.

I seem to remember discussing the invasion with groverat at the time. I think he believed what they were selling at the time. That Iraq would be surgical and a quick in and out. Well alot of people were duped and I don't blame them. You want to believe the people you support. Especially if they are president. I never supported ( or believed ) Bush so I didn't suffer with that problem. The idea that people once supported this and we should not listen to them now because of that is just stupid.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all.

It puts into some context your belief that McCain will win. You claim below that McCain will win NY. That's pure delusion, on par with the belief that Bush would win 50 states.

Quote:

False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it.

No, Shawn is right. There was no movement after that "issue." Obama was trailing by 20, whittled it down to 10 points six weeks ago (a few weeks before bittergate), and then held steady until the election. Here are all the polls:

Thank you for finally realizing the stupidity of the question that is the title of this thread. He can't close the deal because no one can close the deal before the convention. He can't "put her away" because she has no reason to go away, even if her chances are gone.

Even further, McCain doesn't have a single real vote right now. He's got pledges, which can change if something crazy happens.

Quote:

Well the difference though is the odds for both Clinton and Obama are bad.

Not true at all. Obama's odds are great, hers are terrible.

Clinton, now behind by 150 delegates, got a net of 7 to 10 delegates from Pennsylvania. This is from the biggest state since Texas/Ohio in which she is favored.

She lost. That isn't even the question anymore. She lost.

The only question remaining is not whether or not Obama will win, but why Obama isn't winning bigger. And it's a good question, because it goes a hell of a long way into getting into real discussions about what is happening in this extended Democratic primary (without leaning on asinine sports/sex analogies).

Quote:

No one gets to it without taking someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. A 50/50 split of all remaining states (with the odd delegates going to Clinton) and superdelegates sends Obama well over the threshold.

As an interested observer from the Great White North, I feel Obama wouldn't make a great president.

Change for the sake of change is the only message he seems to have, listening to some of his supporters.

I believe he doesn't have the balls to stick to whatever his agenda is.
Weak will comes to mind.

Just my impression of listening to him.

Unfortunately, you haven't read his policy proposals, which of course isn't surprising given that all the media seems to care about is sucking off mccain (who grows more senile by the minute) and enticing the democrats into a cat fight... but whatever, when whomever mccain gets as a vp takes over when the old man keels over and launches nukes against the Sunnis in Iran for supporting Al Queda, we'll all be laughing our asses off...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."